Mendy not guilty

[ibromurph]

About 1 in 70 actually get to trial. So you could say this was the one in seventy rape cases the police and cps actually believed theyd get a result in. But as the judge said, if there's any doubt whatsoever you can't convict.

The good side of that is that hardly any men will ever be wrongfully convicted. The terrible side is that this case makes the point that if a girl goes back to someone's house, no matter how many of them it happens to, if she and others are raped in similar circumstances, no matter how probable that makes it that a dude is systematically abusing them, then sorry, there is no justice for you.

I am not sure about this. The stats don't bear that out.

And without getting myself in trouble, I came speak from experience as I was on a jury that was for a very similar case. And there's always an element of doubt in these cases, because no one else was there but the two people, and so you go on balance of probabilities. And it took a few days for us to reach a guilty verdict. And generally, the victim is given a lot of sympathy in these proceedings, especially when the accused is from a foreign country. Till this day, it burns me whether we actually made the right decision.

 

[Woland]

You can blame the victim sometimes. I'm not walking into Old Trafford wearing a Liverpool shirt. If I did I'd get beat up, it would be my fault, but the dudes who stoved my head in would go to fucking jail. Its not that hard to see that contributing to one's own demise doesn't lessen the assailant's liability

 

[ibromurph]

This is a slippery slope - yes I advise my daughter not to be out alone at night and not to go to random guys houses, but the above philosophy very quickly turns into "she was asking for it" and, as I said before, victim blaming. Obviously I don't think that is what you mean Modo, but there are loads of people who would pick up this argument and use it to blame the victim & excuse the aggressor.

I think all rapists should be publicly executed. But equally, any person who wrongly accuses someone of raping or sexually assaulting them should face jail time, because there's such a heavy punishment going the other way. And I'm not talking about in the "he-said, she-said" cases (which would be the majority), I am talking about when it's proven 100% (potentially on video, potentially an admission on tape), that the person did/didn't commit the crime.

 

[ibromurph]

You can blame the victim sometimes. I'm not walking into Old Trafford wearing a Liverpool shirt. If I did I'd get beat up, it would be my fault, but the dudes who stoved my head in would go to fucking jail. Its not that hard to see that contributing to one's own demise doesn't lessen the assailant's liability

Of course, you're right. No one is saying that an assailant's liability should be reduced in any way because of what someone else was wearing. And yes, as the radical left would say, we need to educate all of our sons & brothers not to be rapists & sexual assaulters.

But if you're a responsible Dad/brother, would you still equally advise your son in that scenario, it's not wise to walk to Old Trafford wearing a Liverpool shirt right? As to not attract trouble from the United hooligans? Similarly, i'd advise my sisters/daughter that it's not wise to go over to a man's house late at night wearing a tight dress because I know the nature of men, and the assumptions that some of them may make if you did go over that late. But yes, if something did happen, the assailant's liability isn't reduced in any way. I doubt rapists care too much about what you're wearing at that point.

We're allowed to do both, right? Educate men and women in such scenarios.

 

[StevieM]

I think you've made an assumption that a camera in your lounge can be just used for setting up hookups. That's one usecase, and heh, if a young man wants be partake in the current hookup culture FAD (he's doing so with eager, willing women), sure I can advise him he should do better as a young man, but I am also realistic and tell him to be careful inviting random women over, because you never know which psycho you're going to meet along the way (it only takes 1 to ruin your life; you may very well have 99 other smooth experiences). In the real world, the current dating market is filled with people (men & women) who's life choices & needs you might not personally agree with. That doesn't mean you can't advise them both to do better and understand that it's smart to take steps to protect yourself. It's no different to telling someone, don't have sex until you're 18, but if you do decide to have sex, to use protection because you don't know what diseases are out there. So yeah, a man should probably takes steps & precautions, as should a woman who is going to visit a man. (She should tell a friend exactly where she's going, who's she meeting, check in with them periodically, hell, take self-defense spray, even if necessary).

Moreover, like I said, that's just one potential use case of a camera in your lounge. It can be used to ensure a hired cleaner doesn't steal from you or to monitor your kids. It can also be used to protect yourself accusations even from your own spouse. Someone I know found himself in a physically/mentally abusive relationship with his missus. When they split up, the woman made all sorts of accusations against him. Now I don't know exactly what happened, no one does, but I do know the women seemed a bit strange whenever I met them both. But guess who the court/three judges believed when the waterworks came out and a child was on the line in their custody hearing? I bet my guy had wished he had some video evidence then (of the amount of times she "apparently" attacked & swore at him in their own house; but no one will ever know) and he now has to book sessions to see his child with a counsellor present because somehow they believe he's manipulative & abusive, despite having never ever being convicted of committing any crime.

Mate, honestly don’t what traumatic events you or your friends have gone through. - but genuinely, you should probably read back sone of the things you’re typing here.

Did it ever occur to you that your mate is the psycho? I’m sure he could use his CCTV for lots of things - does he have a cleaner & kids he needs to monitor along with his hookups?

 

[ibromurph]

Mate, honestly don’t what traumatic events you or your friends have gone through. - but genuinely, you should probably read back sone of the things you’re typing here.

Did it ever occur to you that your mate is the psycho? I’m sure he could use his CCTV for lots of things - does he have a cleaner & kids he needs to monitor along with his hookups?

Firstly, I was giving you different scenarios, for different people. Dele Alli's situation is a reason why you might want to monitor what's going on with your kids (& the people around them). Again, that's something that's happened to an extended family member (abuse from their family friend). It's actually more common than people realise.

Your point about who is the psycho I've most def considered (my ego isn't so big that I wouldn't consider the other side), especially when there are big accusations abound. Without video evidence there is no way to tell who is lying (and why I mentioned that I bet he wish he had a camera in that scenario; this is a different person to the Tinder hookup friend). Because as good as a "mate" he might be (which he's not), there's always going to be a lingering suspicion, even in my mind, whether he is actually telling the truth; I can't say definitively if he's a physical/emotional abuser without tape. Ultimately, there's no way of telling who is lying in such a situation, but the family courts usually rule on the side of the women.

But yes, you're right, it appears we live in two vastly different worlds, and have seen different types of trauma. I wouldn't want to wish it on you or family, but if you did, perhaps you might have a different view on things. But heh, I am not sure there's any value in continuing this line of discussion since we're working from two different planes of understanding.

 

[StevieM]

Firstly, I was giving you different scenarios, for different people. Dele Alli's situation is a reason why you might want to monitor what's going on with your kids (& the people around them). Again, that's something that's happened to an extended family member (abuse from their family friend). It's actually more common than people realise.

Your point about who is the psycho I've most def considered (my ego isn't so big that I wouldn't consider the other side), especially when there are big accusations abound. Without video evidence there is no way to tell who is lying (and why I mentioned that I bet he wish he had a camera in that scenario; this is a different person to the Tinder hookup friend). Because as good as a "mate" he might be (which he's not), there's always going to be a lingering suspicion, even in my mind, whether he is actually telling the truth; I can't say definitively if he's a physical/emotional abuser without tape. Ultimately, there's no way of telling who is lying in such a situation, but the family courts usually rule on the side of the women.

But yes, you're right, it appears we live in two vastly different worlds, and have seen different types of trauma. I wouldn't want to wish it on you or family, but if you did, perhaps you might have a different view on things. But heh, I am not sure there's any value in continuing this line of discussion since we're working from two different planes of understanding.

It’s your tinder friend I think might be a psycho in training.

I just find the stance you’re taking a little weird.

We’ve all experienced different trauma - I have a female friend who went through an abusive relationship, divorce and then a sexual assault from a work colleague/flatmate - I was their boss at the time - and I witnessed first hand people blaming her for it all.

One of my partner’s oldest friends has a long standing problem with an ex of hers - both of them have ended up get lifted by the cops and she got a restraining order of some sort on him - she’s had to practically go into hiding.

I just find this “men aren’t protected enough” line a bit strange - as if practically everything hasn’t already been loaded in our favour.

 

[ibromurph]

It’s your tinder friend I think might be a psycho in training.

I just find the stance you’re taking a little weird.

We’ve all experienced different trauma - I have a female friend who went through an abusive relationship, divorce and then a sexual assault from a work colleague/flatmate - I was their boss at the time - and I witnessed first hand people blaming her for it all.

One of my partner’s oldest friends has a long standing problem with an ex of hers - both of them have ended up get lifted by the cops and she got a restraining order of some sort on him - she’s had to practically go into hiding.

I just find this “men aren’t protected enough” line a bit strange - as if practically everything hasn’t already been loaded in our favour.

You've cast aspersions other whether my friend is a "psycho". I could easily do the same and cast aspersions over whether your female friend was the abusive one in her relationship, or whether your partner's oldest friend was the aggressor in her situation. No one knows without footage (which is why I would urge everyone to have a Ring camera in their house).

Is my Tinder mate, a psycho in training? I actually don't know, he very well may be, to be honest. I connect with him on money/investments etc, but we talk about life experiences & women too. But how did he get to that point where he was have meaningless connections? Well his ex-wife messed him up, cheated on him, had a child with another man, then tried to pretend it was his own until DNA proved otherwise. And when they divorced, guess what, she still was entitled to half of his money (we must protect the woman!). So sure, I understand why he's on a rebound phase in his life and isn't looking for anything long term, & has an innate distrust of women. Every "psycho" has their own genesis story; which usually starts with a woman.

As for your wider point about men's mental health. Absolutely, I stick by that. Double down in fact. I think your sort of thinking about men being protected is very dangerous. It's exactly why men are committing suicide in disproportionate numbers, because a man suffering from depression isn't taken very seriously. They're just supposed to get on with it. The whole "man up" culture. Even if they're found "not guilty" of a crime, we're told that we must believe a woman and "they probably just got away with it". I think that's a dangerous ideology. We may as well not even have judicial process at all.

 

[Dreambeliever]

I'd imagine 95% of us on here were done dating by the time tinder came around.

Ha, too true.

 

[Dreambeliever]

I know people have been set up and robbed at knife point.

I don't know people have been set up and murdered personally, but that's likely because they don't fight back when they're in such a situation.

So yeah, for me, it does alter my world view. It's not wise to be going over to women's houses unless you really know them well.

But it’s ok to expect women to the do the opposite? And I know a fair amount of men who lie to get women back to their place so I don’t buy the ‘that’s on the woman’ argument either.

 

[ibromurph]

But it’s ok to expect women to the do the opposite? And I know a fair amount of men who lie to get women back to their place so I don’t buy the ‘that’s on the woman’ argument either.

I have no expectations of either. I would just advise my male friend that it's not wise to go over to a random woman's house.

Similarly, I'd advise a female friend it's not wise to go over to a random male's house. Because I know the nature of men in such scenarios.

I also appreciate that men and women ARE different. And that's OK. Men usually can overpower women, so if your female friend gets into an altercation with a random man, she's more likely to come off worse, which is why I'd advise my female friends to exercise precaution from Tinder hookups, & going over to a man's place.

If it's a male friend, he's unlikely to come off worse in an altercation (unless the woman is armed), but he can still be accused of assault, so he too should exercise precaution with meeting with random females. As we've seen in the multiple cases over the years, it always looks unfavourable when you actively go to someone else's house too. So both parties, men and women, should exercise caution, and wait until they really get to know someone. But in the real world, with the current hookup culture, that's not always the case.

Moreover, if a man sets up a woman, it's usually that man committing the crime. If a woman sets up a man, it's usually 1 or 2 other men committing the crime on her behalf. A honeytrap situation.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with me giving common-sense advise?

 

[StevieM]

You've cast aspersions other whether my friend is a "psycho". I could easily do the same and cast aspersions over whether your female friend was the abusive one in her relationship, or whether your partner's oldest friend was the aggressor in her situation. No one knows without footage (which is why I would urge everyone to have a Ring camera in their house).

Is my Tinder mate, a psycho in training? I actually don't know, he very well may be, to be honest. I connect with him on money/investments etc, but we talk about life experiences & women too. But how did he get to that point where he was have meaningless connections? Well his ex-wife messed him up, cheated on him, had a child with another man, then tried to pretend it was his own until DNA proved otherwise. And when they divorced, guess what, she still was entitled to half of his money (we must protect the woman!). So sure, I understand why he's on a rebound phase in his life and isn't looking for anything long term, & has an innate distrust of women. Every "psycho" has their own genesis story; which usually starts with a woman.

As for your wider point about men's mental health. Absolutely, I stick by that. Double down in fact. I think your sort of thinking about men being protected is very dangerous. It's exactly why men are committing suicide in disproportionate numbers, because a man suffering from depression isn't taken very seriously. They're just supposed to get on with it. The whole "man up" culture. Even if they're found "not guilty" of a crime, we're told that we must believe a woman and "they probably just got away with it". I think that's a dangerous ideology. We may as well not even have judicial process at all.

This is what I mean by questions - this in particular is revealing and says a lot yiu might want to ask yourself about - “Every "psycho" has their own genesis story; which usually starts with a woman.”

That’s just pure nonsense.

The psycho bit is about the actions - your “mate” has had a rough time and they’re dealing with it tinder hook-ups and needing to protect himself by setting up video surveillance.

That’s not healthy and isn’t likely to develop a positive outlook on woman - sounds like it’ll make him more bitter - and you’re practically enabling him by thinking it’s smart and a good thing to do.

You might indeed think it’s my female friends that were the psycho’s - except their actions afterwards were not - in the first case, she took her experience and became stronger - has now found a really caring partner and they’re having a child together.

Men’s health is important - I can say that as someone who has suffered from depression & anxiety throughout their life - but it doesn’t look like your mate is dealing with his problems at all.

Not sure where you get the idea I don’t take it serious - but again seeking help, working through problems, understanding what triggers depression is one thing - dealing with a bad breakup with Tinder and needing to install security cameras in case your random hookups are psychos is not working things out.

If anything - that’s more dangerous and is making health even worse.

What’s also dangerous and you’ve been skating pretty close to it, is viewing women as the problem - they’re not - it’s specific individuals that are a problem and the fact remains that serious sexual assault IS carried out by men significantly more often and loads DO get away with it.

If Mendy is indeed the victim in all this - my advice WOULD NOT be to install CCTV so that when he invites more random women over to be double teamed or shared sexually by him and his mates - he can protect himself from future claims of sexual assault and then opine that women are evil and men need to protect themselves in this way if they want to continue getting the sexual gratification they deserve - and also it protects you against the cleaner and you can keep an eye on the kids if you’re busy doing something in another room.

I don’t mean to be rude and I’m not having a crack at you - but there are some scary things in your posts that seem to be at odds with what you’re actually trying to achieve.

You mentioned “radical left” in one post - that’s usually a red flag for me (pun not intended) into a certain mindset. Whatever “Radical left” exists, it doesn’t have very much sway in most western societies. It’s a bogeyman (or bogeywoman in this case).

 

[StevieM]

I have no expectations of either. I would just advise my male friend that it's not wise to go over to a random woman's house.

Similarly, I'd advise a female friend it's not wise to go over to a random male's house. Because I know the nature of men in such scenarios.

I also appreciate that men and women ARE different. And that's OK. Men usually can overpower women, so if your female friend gets into an altercation with a random man, she's more likely to come off worse, which is why I'd advise my female friends to exercise precaution from Tinder hookups, & going over to a man's place.

If it's a male friend, he's unlikely to come off worse in an altercation (unless the woman is armed), but he can still be accused of assault, so he too should exercise precaution with meeting with random females. As we've seen in the multiple cases over the years, it always looks unfavourable when you actively go to someone else's house too. So both parties, men and women, should exercise caution, and wait until they really get to know someone. But in the real world, with the current hookup culture, that's not always the case.

Moreover, if a man sets up a woman, it's usually that man committing the crime. If a woman sets up a man, it's usually 1 or 2 other men committing the crime on her behalf. A honeytrap situation.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with me giving common-sense advise?

See… you go straight to a “honey trap” being a woman using 1 or 2 other men on her behalf.

Wouldn’t it be as likely, if not more, that the 1 or 2 men are using the woman to spring this trap - in which case there’s 2 victims.

You’re veering very close to most women are criminal masterminds and gold diggers.

They exist, for sure, but they’re a lot less common than plan old controlling rapey men - and they’re also in a minority, thankfully.

I have yet to meet a man who’s scared to walk home on his own for fear of being attacked by a woman, raped, murdered and chucked in a ditch or a wheelie bin.

 

[ibromurph]

This is what I mean by questions - this in particular is revealing and says a lot yiu might want to ask yourself about - “Every "psycho" has their own genesis story; which usually starts with a woman.”

That’s just pure nonsense.

The psycho bit is about the actions - your “mate” has had a rough time and they’re dealing with it tinder hook-ups and needing to protect himself by setting up video surveillance.

That’s not healthy and isn’t likely to develop a positive outlook on woman - sounds like it’ll make him more bitter - and you’re practically enabling him by thinking it’s smart and a good thing to do.

You might indeed think it’s my female friends that were the psycho’s - except their actions afterwards were not - in the first case, she took her experience and became stronger - has now found a really caring partner and they’re having a child together.

Men’s health is important - I can say that as someone who has suffered from depression & anxiety throughout their life - but it doesn’t look like your mate is dealing with his problems at all.

Not sure where you get the idea I don’t take it serious - but again seeking help, working through problems, understanding what triggers depression is one thing - dealing with a bad breakup with Tinder and needing to install security cameras in case your random hookups are psychos is not working things out.

If anything - that’s more dangerous and is making health even worse.

What’s also dangerous and you’ve been skating pretty close to it, is viewing women as the problem - they’re not - it’s specific individuals that are a problem and the fact remains that serious sexual assault IS carried out by men significantly more often and loads DO get away with it.

If Mendy is indeed the victim in all this - my advice WOULD NOT be to install CCTV so that when he invites more random women over to be double teamed or shared sexually by him and his mates - he can protect himself from future claims of sexual assault and then opine that women are evil and men need to protect themselves in this way if they want to continue getting the sexual gratification they deserve - and also it protects you against the cleaner and you can keep an eye on the kids if you’re busy doing something in another room.

I don’t mean to be rude and I’m not having a crack at you - but there are some scary things in your posts that seem to be at odds with what you’re actually trying to achieve.

You mentioned “radical left” in one post - that’s usually a red flag for me (pun not intended) into a certain mindset. Whatever “Radical left” exists, it doesn’t have very much sway in most western societies. It’s a bogeyman (or bogeywoman in this case).

"Every psycho has a genesis story - and it usually starts with a woman" was a joke. As in, every psycho is born from a woman.

My friend is a young man, who has had a rough time and is dealing with it the way he wants to deal with it. You can't fell someone how to live their life. I can appreciate if he is going to do whatever he's going to do on Tinder, whether I/you like it or not, it's smart to stay safe. It's no different to advising people to wear condoms if they're going to have sex out of marriage. People are going to do whatever they're going to do. And they'll go to therapy when they're ready to go. He has closer friends and family that will no doubt support him, when he's ready.

Viewing women as the problem? In what sense? I'd advise my male friends on the dangers of lying women, just like how I'd advise my female friends on the dangers of abusive men. I don't see a problem here.

In Mendy's case, he was found not guilty of a crime. I am happen to believe in the court system, in this case. The facts were heard and a jury reached a decision and found him not guilty of all charges. Had he been found guilty, I would have been calling for the death penalty. I don't think there's anything wrong with now offering the man support. Sure, he's got a sex problem. Some people have drink and drug problems. He should be offered support in dealing with it, but also support in being labelled by most a rapist, before the case was even heard in court.

I'm not sure what scares you exactly. The fact that I can believe it's possible he was not guilty of rape, and that in a case like with a celeb, it's possible that a woman (maybe not all of them, but a few) could drum up false claims (after the first accusation)? And that men should take steps to protect themselves if they are going lead such a life? Well, I'm sure what else to say. We're all shaped by our own experiences and the experiences of those around us. Perhaps, we're just in different times...

 

[ibromurph]

See… you go straight to a “honey trap” being a woman using 1 or 2 other men on her behalf.

Wouldn’t it be as likely, if not more, that the 1 or 2 men are using the woman to spring this trap - in which case there’s 2 victims.

You’re veering very close to most women are criminal masterminds and gold diggers.

They exist, for sure, but they’re a lot less common than plan old controlling rapey men - and they’re also in a minority, thankfully.

I have yet to meet a man who’s scared to walk home on his own for fear of being attacked by a woman, raped, murdered and chucked in a ditch or a wheelie bin.

No, I beg to differ, I don't believe there are not 2 victims. I believe there are 3 criminals and 1 victim. The woman doesn't have to be the mastermind, but if she's involved, she's involved. She's going to prison just the same if you're attacked.

More plain old controlling rapey men? Sure. No one is disputing this. I've already acknowledged this fact; that there are more rapists out there who get away with crimes than there are golddiggers/psycho women. And said, this is especially true in Africa and 3rd world countries, where law and order doesn't exist the same, and women are abused/assaulted A LOT more.

And because of this fact, as I said to DB, I wouldn't allow my sister/daughters to be going to random men's parties, or clubs, nor taking drugs/alcohol because I know the dangers that men, yes men, can present out there. I come from a Muslim background, and it talks about the dangers of men, which is why our women, like or not, are encouraged to dress a certain way and not take drugs/drink (anything that might impair their decision making or ability to protect themself). And why in Muslim countries, women aren't allowed to just go out there alone and "date" (without some sort of family member present), because we know there are a lot more dangerous men out there. I don't dispute this.

 

[ibromurph]

Oh, FWIW, I'm pretty much centre-left. I have never supported or voted for Conservatives/Republicans/Trump/Boris. I supported Obama/Blair (until they went about killing people with their illegal wars)/Corbyn. But I believe the true left has lost its way in recent times; almost doesn't exist, in fact, and Labour has become more of a centre-right party with Starmer.

And as triggering as it may be, there is now a "radical left" (because I hate using the term the "woke brigade") and because I used to consider myself "woke" before it got hijacked by what I consider is now the "radical left"; just like the "meToo" movement got hijacked by the radical left. These movements have lost a lot of their power and momentum because it was all too easy for the "right" to defuse it by saying "look, if we disagree with them on something, or ask for logic/scientific evidence, they will just accuse us of being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic bigots who refuse to affirm our reality". There's no longer room to even debate ideas without being cancelled or told your way of thinking is outdated and needs to modernise. There's no room for any conservative or religious views, it appears.

 

[StevieM]

Oh, FWIW, I'm pretty much centre-left. I have never supported or voted for Conservatives/Republicans/Trump/Boris. I supported Obama/Blair (until they went about killing people with their illegal wars)/Corbyn. But I believe the true left has lost its way in recent times; almost doesn't exist, in fact, and Labour has become more of a centre-right party with Starmer.

And as triggering as it may be, there is now a "radical left" (because I hate using the term the "woke brigade") and because I used to consider myself "woke" before it got hijacked by what I consider is now the "radical left"; just like the "meToo" movement got hijacked by the radical left. These movements have lost a lot of their power and momentum because it was all too easy for the "right" to defuse it by saying "look, if we disagree with them on something, or ask for logic/scientific evidence, they will just accuse us of being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic bigots who refuse to affirm our reality". There's no longer room to even debate ideas without being cancelled or told your way of thinking is outdated and needs to modernise. There's no room for any conservative or religious views, it appears.

“There's no room for any conservative or religious views, it appears.”

Yeah - you’ll really struggle to find media outlets and social media platforms that support conservative or religious views!!!

Come on mate - conservatives aren’t known for their commitment to open debate and inclusion - the hint is in the word “conservative”.

Don’t get me started on the church - last time I went (about a year ago) I had to listen to a mainstream Presbyterian minister storm through a diatribe on why it was wrong to question anything and how everyone who did not freely submit themselves to God without question would burn in eternal hellfire or something - I was kind of terrified.”

This “radical left” thing is nonsense - what there is of an actual “radical left” you’re unlikely to ever hear or see anywhere.

Woke brigade is another made up term that means nothing - you’re starting to sound like Dantes.

You stayed earlier that “you can’t tell someone how to live their life” but is that exactly what the conservatism, or whatever the opposite of “radical left” is (I expect they’re not referred to as “radical right”), is doing - telling people how they should live their lives?

I’m not trying to be argumentative and we’re straying way off the original subject here - but you have some “interesting” perspectives.

 

[ibromurph]

That's funny, because I've argued with Dantes regarding his troublesome views on Trump and George Floyd. There are many folk on the "radical right" which back Trump that do the same as the "radical left", yes. I have no problem referring to people on the right who have wild views on dictating how people should think/live as radical, because I don't belong to either side. Sorry to say, but I kind of feel like you have a similar arrogance to Dantes, only on the other side of the coin. You're so fixed in your view of the way world should be, you've got no time for people's views of the world who just so happen to have the nerve to disagree with your views. It's all "interesting" or "nonsense" and "made up". And people who disagree with you MUST be on the right, or they MUST have bias for them. A person is either on one side or the other side? There's simply no room for any nuanced opinions.

My perspectives may be "interesting", but yours, to me at least, is pretty typical of the current climate we live in, where people are always trying to win an argument, with supposed "gotchas" and apparent "contradictions", as opposed to actually listening to an alternative POV, and trying to find common ground. So yes, for me I see no problem in holding both liberal and conservative views on different subjects. The current climates seems to brainwash people into believing you must espouse all of the typical talking points (on gun control, birth control, religion etc) of one side (right), or espouse all the typical talking points (gender, race, LGBT, etc) of the other side (left).

I personally don't tell my friends how to live their lives, even if I disagree with their choices. I can only advise them to be careful with whatever the choose to do whatever they want to do. I am not perfect in my life, so I don't judge people as "psychos" or "creepy" for living a life that may go against my beliefs, especially if I live in a country that doesn't match my beliefs. I understand everyone is complicated and go through phases in their lives.

 

[StevieM]

That's funny, because I've argued with Dantes regarding his troublesome views on Trump and George Floyd. There are many folk on the "radical right" which back Trump that do the same as the "radical left", yes. I have no problem referring to people on the right who have wild views on dictating how people should think/live as radical, because I don't belong to either side. Sorry to say, but I kind of feel like you have a similar arrogance to Dantes, only on the other side of the coin. You're so fixed in your view of the way world should be, you've got no time for people's views of the world who just so happen to have the nerve to disagree with your views. It's all "interesting" or "nonsense" and "made up". And people who disagree with you MUST be on the right, or they MUST have bias for them. A person is either on one side or the other side? There's simply no room for any nuanced opinions.

My perspectives may be "interesting", but yours, to me at least, is pretty typical of the current climate we live in, where people are always trying to win an argument, with supposed "gotchas" and apparent "contradictions", as opposed to actually listening to an alternative POV, and trying to find common ground. So yes, for me I see no problem in holding both liberal and conservative views on different subjects. The current climates seems to brainwash people into believing you must espouse all of the typical talking points (on gun control, birth control, religion etc) of one side (right), or espouse all the typical talking points (gender, race, LGBT, etc) of the other side (left).

I personally don't tell my friends how to live their lives, even if I disagree with their choices. I can only advise them to be careful with whatever the choose to do whatever they want to do. I am not perfect in my life, so I don't judge people as "psychos" or "creepy" for living a life that may go against my beliefs, especially if I live in a country that doesn't match my beliefs. I understand everyone is complicated and go through phases in their lives.

I mean I might be fixed in my view, I suppose, most of it’s probably no different to yours, except, maybe,

The nonsense you clarified as a joke - fair enough. The bit about not being able to voice conservative views though is nonsense - unless the expectation is they won’t get challenged.

Not really trying to “win” an argument - I don’t think there is much of an argument to be honest - I can find Mendy a despicable individual regardless of whether he was found guilty or not.

Without drawing direct comparisons - Jimmy Saville was never charged due to lack of evidence which would strongly suggest no chance of a conviction had he even went to trail - I wouldn’t have jumped on to say the problem is with those that made the allegations - I’m pretty certain you’d wouldn’t either.

What I’m finding, and I’m not sure how better to word it, interesting, is I’m find you balled up in a few contradictions around people’s freedom, conservative values, religious values, and victimisation. If feels a bit patriarchal - men need protection, men always get done over in family court type issues and that then leads towards not being able to hold or air conservative or religious values.

We literally live in a society dominated by male, conservative and religious values, in some way, pretty much everywhere round the globe.

Like I said - we’re probably pretty similar in outlook apart from a few things, I just can’t help find the differences a little odd, all things considered - but I’ve no idea what led you there.

Maybe it’s because I was always closer to my mother and probably had more female friends that close male friends in my life - not entirely sure

I don’t think you’re creepy by the way - your mate seems more than a bit creepy - I just don’t quite get your take on this - but I don’t really know your life and experiences that have brought you here.

 

[mark1975]

Bit of a different situation and context, my lad started Uni 4yrs ago and within the first week, a lad on his floor was accused of raping a girl. They had their first "freshers" night out as a group and the said lad had walked a girl home but said he was coming back to the club they were in once he'd dropped her off. He never returned, then when everyone returned home, he turned up boasting about having sex with the girl. Only later did it come out that by the time the girl got home, she was seen completely "out of it" as someone held the door open for them at her apartment. My lad was called up as a witness, but never got to attend court. The case dragged on for over 3yrs because of Covid and various other issues, to the point where the case was eventually dropped. The whole group came out against the lad because of increasingly creepy behaviour over the time building up to the allegations, they were convinced he'd done it. Once the allegations came out he returned home, the girl stayed at Uni, but was a total mess.

My take on it now is pretty hazy, but the crux of the story was that everyone thought he did it, but he got off with it. The case was left so long, that people's accounts get fuzzy, contradictions come into play as recollections get distorted, and cases then get dropped. As with these sort of cases, it's complex. Faith in justice is only based on hard facts and evidence, too often with sexual assault it's the word of one against the other, people's judgement of others can be skewed based on media coverage and bias, but by the same token, a persons type of character can be obvious based on other behaviour, personality traits, etc. It's a tough one.

 

[Delinquent]

I don't know how to put it, but I feel like many times we just forget about accountability.
These are adult women.
Yes, in an ideal world you should be able to go to a stranger's house at 10 PM on a weekend and just play Yatzy. But if the guy is Mendy and you're woman no 5367, you kinda should know what's going on in that house?

So what if they did? Does that mean that once they set foot inside they are consenting to sex, whatever the circumstances? Of course it doesn't. Women are allowed to exercise choice at any point.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these women went out in skimpy outfits, to places where they know rich footballers hang out, fully intent on hooking up and shagging their way to celebrity. Now, we can make all sorts of judgements about unsavoury these women are, and disapprove of their life choices. We could even call them sluts or gold diggers. But regardless of what anyone thinks of them, these women retain the right to choose at any stage of the relationship. If they arrive at someone's house and that person wants to play rough, or to double up on them with his friend, or talk dirty to them, or perhaps tie them up in a basement dungeon, they're allowed to say no. Or if they have a headache, or are feeling a bit too fucked on alcohol/cocaine/whatever else, they're allowed to say no. And even if none of those things happen and they just don't feel like it, they're allowed to say no at any time before (or even during) the act. And their wishes should be respected.

This is the kind of victim blaming that others have been referring to.

 

[Modo]

So what if they did? Does that mean that once they set foot inside they are consenting to sex, whatever the circumstances? Of course it doesn't. Women are allowed to exercise choice at any point.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these women went out in skimpy outfits, to places where they know rich footballers hang out, fully intent on hooking up and shagging their way to celebrity. Now, we can make all sort of judgements about unsavoury these women are, and disapprove of their life choices. We could even call them sluts or gold diggers. But regardless of what anyone thinks of them, these women retain the right to choose at any stage of the relationship. If they arrive at someone's house and that person wants to play rough, or to double up on them with his friend, or talk dirty to them, or perhaps tie them up in a basement dungeon, they're allowed to say no. Or if they have a headache, or are feeling a bit too fucked on alcohol/cocaine/whatever else, they're allowed to say no. And even if none of those things happen and they just don't feel like it, they're allowed to say no at any time before (or even during) the act. And their wishes should be respected.

This is the kind of victim blaming that others have been referring to.

I think ibromurph covered it and I don't feel like discussing this any further.

 

[mark1975]

So what if they did? Does that mean that once they set foot inside they are consenting to sex, whatever the circumstances? Of course it doesn't. Women are allowed to exercise choice at any point.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these women went out in skimpy outfits, to places where they know rich footballers hang out, fully intent on hooking up and shagging their way to celebrity. Now, we can make all sort of judgements about unsavoury these women are, and disapprove of their life choices. We could even call them sluts or gold diggers. But regardless of what anyone thinks of them, these women retain the right to choose at any stage of the relationship. If they arrive at someone's house and that person wants to play rough, or to double up on them with his friend, or talk dirty to them, or perhaps tie them up in a basement dungeon, they're allowed to say no. Or if they have a headache, or are feeling a bit too fucked on alcohol/cocaine/whatever else, they're allowed to say no. And even if none of those things happen and they just don't feel like it, they're allowed to say no at any time before (or even during) the act. And their wishes should be respected.

This is the kind of victim blaming that others have been referring to.

Yeah it's completely complex anyway. She could have gone their knowing that it might/probably would lead to sex, but the consent has to be there from the off to the final moment, she could have gone there knowing what might happen, but that's a lot different to being then in intimate circumstances with someone, and realising it's not what you want, because of their behaviour or whatever reason you choose, or because you simply don't want to, whatever. The age old "they knew what they were getting into" shouldn't wash, and never should have.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

I don't think anyone can say for certain one way or another with this case, but I'd say its fairly likely that someone with his fame and money, that has slept with thousands of women is probably not always going to have had consent.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

So what if they did? Does that mean that once they set foot inside they are consenting to sex, whatever the circumstances? Of course it doesn't. Women are allowed to exercise choice at any point.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these women went out in skimpy outfits, to places where they know rich footballers hang out, fully intent on hooking up and shagging their way to celebrity. Now, we can make all sorts of judgements about unsavoury these women are, and disapprove of their life choices. We could even call them sluts or gold diggers. But regardless of what anyone thinks of them, these women retain the right to choose at any stage of the relationship. If they arrive at someone's house and that person wants to play rough, or to double up on them with his friend, or talk dirty to them, or perhaps tie them up in a basement dungeon, they're allowed to say no. Or if they have a headache, or are feeling a bit too fucked on alcohol/cocaine/whatever else, they're allowed to say no. And even if none of those things happen and they just don't feel like it, they're allowed to say no at any time before (or even during) the act. And their wishes should be respected.

This is the kind of victim blaming that others have been referring to.

I'll try to explain this a certain way - and I've said it badly, or come off like a bad person, ask me questions first before judging (and yes, I have daughters).

There are certain places in this world where if I would go into them, the way I'm dressed, with various jewelry I wear & a language I speak, I'll be lucky to come out of it without being harassed (at a minimum). These places can be in Africa, Europe, Asia etc ... I don't go into these places without ensuring that doesn't happen - i.e. what could get me into trouble is not even visible, though it's still a risk. If I were to go into those places the way I said at first, I'd be asking for problems ... Is that 'victim blaming' if shit happens to me? I don't know.

We live in a world where money and power attract - irrelevant of who owns it. Going into that world is asking for trouble - and this is where the line is thin. You're 100% right - obivously a woman (or man) can say no - and they should do if they don't want to participate in anything. However, once you're in the Lion's Den - it's not always a given you'll be given that basic human right. So that leads to two questions - how do we ensure that reality changes, and how do we teach our daughters (and sons too) to not put themselves in these situations?

 

[ibromurph]

I mean I might be fixed in my view, I suppose, most of it’s probably no different to yours, except, maybe,

The nonsense you clarified as a joke - fair enough. The bit about not being able to voice conservative views though is nonsense - unless the expectation is they won’t get challenged.

Not really trying to “win” an argument - I don’t think there is much of an argument to be honest - I can find Mendy a despicable individual regardless of whether he was found guilty or not.

Without drawing direct comparisons - Jimmy Saville was never charged due to lack of evidence which would strongly suggest no chance of a conviction had he even went to trail - I wouldn’t have jumped on to say the problem is with those that made the allegations - I’m pretty certain you’d wouldn’t either.

What I’m finding, and I’m not sure how better to word it, interesting, is I’m find you balled up in a few contradictions around people’s freedom, conservative values, religious values, and victimisation. If feels a bit patriarchal - men need protection, men always get done over in family court type issues and that then leads towards not being able to hold or air conservative or religious values.

We literally live in a society dominated by male, conservative and religious values, in some way, pretty much everywhere round the globe.

Like I said - we’re probably pretty similar in outlook apart from a few things, I just can’t help find the differences a little odd, all things considered - but I’ve no idea what led you there.

Maybe it’s because I was always closer to my mother and probably had more female friends that close male friends in my life - not entirely sure

I don’t think you’re creepy by the way - your mate seems more than a bit creepy - I just don’t quite get your take on this - but I don’t really know your life and experiences that have brought you here.

I genuinely think there's an imbalance between conservatives and liberals views in society. For years, conservatives controlled the media, the narrative and many liberal views were silenced. But more and more progressive conservatives have opened the door for liberal views, and now we've got a degenerate society of both extremes; but liberal views dominate the narrative in the West. Hell, even the Tinder hookup culture that may disgust many, is a result of liberalism running wild. One can argue that the fact that we keep on adding letters to "LGBTQ+.." serves a a mini-microcosm of society's progression to a more liberal society, where everyone can be whoever they want to be, and we must all affirm their version of reality, otherwise you're labelled a bigot.

Nowadays, a person espousing conservative views (on certain topics) can easily get cancelled. I don't see people espousing the most wild liberal views being cancelled in the same numbers.

There's no nuance to the debate either. You have to be all in on one side's narrative. For EXAMPLE, a person can't say that they're in full support of LBG community, but have concerns about the T part and beyond, as it starts to deviate from 2000+ years of science.

Whereas on the other side of the debate, liberals seem to have no problem telling a person with conservative views that their religion is BS and archaic, or that they need to change their way of life and modernise their thinking. For me, Western arrogance is often led by liberals. It's liberals who going around the world, thinking their way of life is better, telling people in Africa and Arabia, to update their "problematic" way of life because it may be based around religion, and doesn't fall in line with current Western values.

These are the same people who said Qatar didn't deserve the World Cup, or that anything Saudi do in football, is an attempt "sports wash" their intolerant society. I don't see conservatives pushing such narratives globally.

As for the other things you posted, well, I think we've found some common ground there. I have agreed with your assertions that, in general, there are far more dangerous men out there than gold-digging, manipulative women. I just believe when it's a celeb, the chances of goId-digger are higher. I also agree that women should be protected more in certain scenarios, because let's face it, they are the physically weaker sex (women don't go around raping men). Perhaps where we disagree is the extent to which a man should be protected before a guilty/not-guilty verdict is reached. I just think there's an imbalance and an unfairness, if a man is found not guilty, to then still label him a rapist (unless he got away on a technicality). Jimmy Saville, for example, was dead before much of the evidence of him being a pedophile came out, otherwise I'm pretty sure he'd have been convicted.

I do concede that women should be protected in a he-said, she-said case. I just so happened to believe the Mendy case it wasn't rape, largely because how quickly the jury came back with their verdict. But I may be wrong with that assumption and he was just very good at hiding his heinous crimes. No one beside the people involved will ever truly know whether he's a rapist or not. I just don't think it's fair to label him one now, as (unlike Saville) he actually faced a criminal trial (most of which end up in a conviction when it goes that far). But heh, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, because either way, it's clear he disrespected women with his behaviours, criminal or not. So I have little sympathy for him in particular, but do for those guys who genuinely do nothing wrong but are labelled rapists when it becomes clear they are genuinely not guilty.

 

[Woland]

I'll try to explain this a certain way - and I've said it badly, or come off like a bad person, ask me questions first before judging (and yes, I have daughters).

There are certain places in this world where if I would go into them, the way I'm dressed, with various jewelry I wear & a language I speak, I'll be lucky to come out of it without being harassed (at a minimum). These places can be in Africa, Europe, Asia etc ... I don't go into these places without ensuring that doesn't happen - i.e. what could get me into trouble is not even visible, though it's still a risk. If I were to go into those places the way I said at first, I'd be asking for problems ... Is that 'victim blaming' if shit happens to me? I don't know.

We live in a world where money and power attract - irrelevant of who owns it. Going into that world is asking for trouble - and this is where the line is thin. You're 100% right - obivously a woman (or man) can say no - and they should do if they don't want to participate in anything. However, once you're in the Lion's Den - it's not always a given you'll be given that basic human right. So that leads to two questions - how do we ensure that reality changes, and how do we teach our daughters (and sons too) to not put themselves in these situations?

Well jailing the rapey cunt would seem a decent start

 

[LeTallecWiz]

Well jailing the rapey cunt would seem a decent start

I don't know how easy it is for rapists to be convicted (i.e. what proof is necessary), but I'd go as extreme as possible in the punishment ... whatever it takes to ensure the person never touches another woman again - i guess castration or worse.

 

[Modo]

So what if they did? Does that mean that once they set foot inside they are consenting to sex, whatever the circumstances? Of course it doesn't. Women are allowed to exercise choice at any point.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these women went out in skimpy outfits, to places where they know rich footballers hang out, fully intent on hooking up and shagging their way to celebrity. Now, we can make all sorts of judgements about unsavoury these women are, and disapprove of their life choices. We could even call them sluts or gold diggers. But regardless of what anyone thinks of them, these women retain the right to choose at any stage of the relationship. If they arrive at someone's house and that person wants to play rough, or to double up on them with his friend, or talk dirty to them, or perhaps tie them up in a basement dungeon, they're allowed to say no. Or if they have a headache, or are feeling a bit too fucked on alcohol/cocaine/whatever else, they're allowed to say no. And even if none of those things happen and they just don't feel like it, they're allowed to say no at any time before (or even during) the act. And their wishes should be respected.

This is the kind of victim blaming that others have been referring to.

What you're describing is clear cut. It's rape and I'm not trying to explain it away.
But the picture I'm trying to paint is totally different. I'm looking at it from the perspective that Mendy is innocent.
What if these girls came to that party willing to have sex, did the dirty and then expected more? Maybe they expected a call or a relationship or whatever. Maybe that led to them starting this whole thing against him.

I know the type of people Mendy hangs with, it might sound xenophobic but it's a culture thing. I grew up with people like them. Their view of women is so archaic people in the middle ages would raise an eyebrow. So yeah I think Mendy is a despicable human being. I hope that's clear.
He probably didn't want anything more than sex and I think these girls might have felt disrespected. Yes this is pure speculation.
So if this was the case and they went there willingly to have sex, do drugs and whatever, but didn't really get the response they wanted afterwards, is it rape?

If they went there just to party and add a few followers to Instagram and chasing clout but were instead drugged and abused, then we're back to it being rape again and I'm not gonna argue it being anything else.

However, I did mention accountability. So the night my nephew came home escorted by two cops, was it wrong of me to ask him, "WTF were you doing in the middle of the night at that abandoned warehouse?" Or am I victim blaming him now?

Let's say my daughter went Mendy's place and nothing happened, they played Yatzy, but she comes home late.
Am I wrong to ask her WTF she was doing at a notorious womaniser home in the middle of the night? Or does it only turn into victim blaming if God forbid something happened to her.
I would never ask my daughter that, but honestly I'd be thinking it. Like where did I go wrong.

 

[ibromurph]

If the problem is as widespread as stated, isn't the solution to a lot of these issues actually educating our sons and daughters?

1) Ensure our sons respect themselves and respect women, and don't got around sleeping with 1000s of women (a sickness of today's culture where such behaviours are celebrated), especially any person who may be impaired by alcohol/drugs.
2) Ensure our daughters respect themselves, and understand the nature/danger of men, by not trying their best to avoid putting themselves in a scenario where a man can do them harm.